posted at 12:41 pm on March 26, 2013 by Allahpundit

When asked if he believes the Republican Party will change its position and support gay marriage in a Wednesday Newsmax interview, Huckabee remarked, “They might, and if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk.”…

“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of,” he continued, “but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard.”…

“If we have subjective standards, that means that we’re willing to move our standards based on the prevailing whims of culture,” he said. “I think politicians have an obligation to be thermostats, not just thermometers. They’re not simply to reflect the temperature of the room, or the culture, as it were. They’re to set the standards for law, for what’s right, for what’s wrong, understanding that not everybody’s going to agree with it, not everybody’s going to accept it.”

I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table. Rubio and Paul and Jindal et al. won’t have to squirm over whether to endorse SSM, back a federalist approach to the issue, or oppose it on the merits. They can just shrug and say “The Court was wrong but whaddaya gonna do?” and move on to other business. Take it from Huckabee: That won’t happen. Abortion’s technically been “off the table” for 40 years and yet it’s still an absolute litmus test for any potential GOP nominee (and any potential Democratic nominee too). To keep social conservatives onboard, candidates will be asked to promise (a) that they’ll appoint Supreme Court justices who are committed to overturning any gay-marriage rulings and (b) that they’ll endorse some sort of constitutional amendment that would either ban SSM outright or, at a minimum, return the issue to the states. (The amendment will go nowhere but that’s beside the point here.) Think a prospective nominee won’t do some squirming over whether they should sign on to those propositions, especially given the GOP’s panic over losing young voters? Come 2016, this won’t be just about gay marriage anymore; it’ll be a test of whether social conservatives retain the same influence over the party platform that they’ve had for the last few decades. That’s why Huck’s framing this in apocalyptic “stick with us or we walk” terms. It’s their party, at least on social issues.

With respect to what’s best for other GOP pols, the simple explanation is the correct one: They’re better off if the Court surprises everyone and upholds Prop 8. Then the 2016 field can take the position that they’re personally opposed to SSM in order to placate social cons while insisting that, as good federalists, they want local voters to decide this issue for themselves. That sort of squishy middle-way stance won’t dazzle anyone on either side but it might hold the Republican coalition together by reassuring Huck and his supporters that red states will still get to chart their own course. It might also be acceptable to young voters in the sense that the potential GOP nominee won’t be standing in the way of gay marriage in states when the votes are there. But note: The squishy position won’t work if the Court does end up legalizing gay marriage this summer. In that case, taking the federalist position via a constitutional amendment will be seen as an attempt to roll back marriage rights that gays have already won. Young voters likely will find that alienating, and social cons may reason that an amendment to return power to the states on the subject simply doesn’t go far enough as a rebuke to a judiciary that’s out of control. What politicians cherish is room to maneuver, and a pro-SSM ruling leaves the GOP with less of that than an anti-SSM ruling would.

Anyway. Across the aisle, Mark Begich magically decided last night that he too is now pro-gay marriage, which makes three Democratic senators who have “evolved” in just the past 24 hours. I’m starting a pool as of right now: At what time today will the next Democratic holdout formally declare his support for SSM? I’ll take 2 p.m. ET.

“We do have a platform, and we adhere to that platform,” Priebus said in an interview Monday on USA TODAY’s Capital Download video series. “But it doesn’t mean that we divide and subtract people from our party” who support the right of gay men and lesbians to marry.

“I don’t believe we need to act like Old Testament heretics,” he said, saying Republicans “have to strike a balance between principle and grace and respect.”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Well quite frankly I think the evangelicals stayed home the last election because they did not like the fact that Rommney was a Mormon. Whatever you say about Democrats one thing they do that Republicans do not is once they have a candidate they put away thier petty differences and all pull together for that one candidate. I have been a Republican since Barry Goldwater and I have always pulled for the final candidate even though I did not totally like him. Elections are one through unity….not childish behavior.

Kind of like being called “sodomites”, “perverts”, “deviants”, etc. and being accused of wishing to destroy marriage, civilization, etc.

Why, I see this on a regular basis here at HA, sometimes directly but mostly indirectly.

I trust that you laugh and dismiss as absurd when labelled as such by others in the name of “diversity” or whatever just as much as we do likewise when it’s supposedly done out of “love” for us or in the name of God…

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 7:35 AM

No, sweetie. I am conservative. I don’t deal in “groups.” I treat people as individuals. I DON’T EVER CALL ANYONE PERVERTS OR DEVIANTS. And you can’t find one post where I ever have. The point is that I expect the same damn respect. Treat me like an individual. Don’t go right to the homophobe, socons are icky label. Have a frickin conversations with me.

Like I said labeling socons with one brush is like labeling all libertarians with one brush.

I find it hilarious that you are willing to throw socons out the party because they disagree with you on TWO frickin issues in the hopes of getting all these myhological voters who ONLY agree with you on those two issues. I mean if they really agreed with you fiscally how the hell could they ever vote for a Democrat who is more intrusive than a socon ever could be.

No on has ever answer me this. If you people and yeah I said you people helped keep marriage and abortion at the state level, what the hell legislation do you think the dreaded socons would be trying to pass at the federal level? When have we used the judiciary as a sledgehammer?

I think the best answer is personal example. Which is , we need to get serious about our own marriages and our own relationships
Respectfully,
Brian P.
pendell2 on March 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Respectfully Brian, but I have been married faithfully to the same man for 21 years. It is the first marriage for both of us. We both got married at 18 and lasted 21 years of military marriage. I am not a hypocrit when I talk about a loving and lasting marriage.

That being said, I have never talked about individual relationships. I have talked about state licensing; quite a different thing.

1. The Tea Party is a party of fiscal issues, not social issues. Whoever this group is, they’re misrepresenting the Tea Party.

2. This boycott is as stupid as the Chick-Fil-A boycott, and just as oppressive.

3. Starbucks showed a lot of balls a couple of years ago when, during the fight for concealed carry rights in Wisconsin, Starbucks officially welcomed people who openly carried firearms(at the time, the only legal way to carry in Wisconsin). This rankled the Left like you wouldn’t believe. Garry Trudeau devoted an entire week of Doonesbury to whining and crying about people carrying guns in Starbucks. This Seattle-based coffee shop probably most identifiable with liberals and hipsters actually stood up for a gun rights stance that even many conservatives have refused to support. That should not be forgotten anytime soon, and should certainly not be forgotten over something as trivial as taking a common position on an issue.

I personally think big boycotts are kinda stupid and mostly leftist. I liked the CFA thing because it wasn’t a boycott, but a bunch of people supporting a business and not boycotting it. I don’t begrudge people boycotting; there is certain people I can’t stomach seeing in the box office anymore just don’t think it works.

I agree with Starbucks. I would only boycott them because what weirdo pays $5 for a cup of coffee?

Well, you’d think a Palinist would recoil against putting phrases in other people’s mouths since she can see Russia from her back porch. When exactly did he say the gays are free to marry any women they want because “they have equal rights but they want more”?

Marcus on March 27, 2013 at 9:13 AM

That wasn’t the quote you cited:

Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. They can get married to someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else. But somehow that’s not good enough.

You think Rick Perry would disagree with that statement?

Really? I’m supposed to take this seriously from someone who equates SSM with fathers marrying their daughters? Please speak with hawk, I understand he has a proposal that might interest you…

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 9:34 AM

On what grounds would you object to father-daughter marriage? Biology? Societal norms? LOL You have no ground to stand on in objecting to ANY legally-approved marriage arrangement. Polygamy, polyandry, incestuous, inter-species, adult-child, whatever. Heck, pedophilia is being talked about now by some as just another lifestyle which the bigoted and narrow-minded choose to denounce (and no, I’m by no means equating homosexuality with pedophilia). You can’t pick and choose and single out SSM just because you happen to be gay and it’s your particular hobby-horse.

Was that the Bristol reality show where the grandkid actually called his mother the F word and Bristol put out a statement saying “it was not f*ggot! It was the other f-er word.”

Yeah, can’t wait to relive that. And now even the marine son is divorced, his marriage clocking in at under 12 months.

Marcus on March 27, 2013 at 9:41 AM

If we judged the worth of a politician by the actions and sex lives of his/her children, Reagan would never have been president.

The bigger thing is that I don’t mind boycotts when companies do things that are truly repellant, like treating customers badly, insulting part of the customer base, or otherwise demonstrating poor judgment. However, on the SSM debate, either way they’re going to hold a position that will piss off half the country. They can’t win on that one. Same would go for abortion and other issues.

If Starbucks wants to go out of its way to hold an “Obama day” where they praise and worship His Holy Highness because they think he’s the greatest dude in all of universal history, then yes…a boycott may be appropriate. If they want to advertise for the show of a person whose views regularly smear or insult me, a boycott may be appropriate.

But when we start punishing businesses merely for holding a view on a highly contested political issue…then we’ve gone into the realm of “SHUT UP…YOU WILL PAY FOR YOUR OPINION!”

John Roberts said in his majority opinion on Marxist Care that is not the responsibility of SCOTUS to protect the people from the actions of their elected representatives. It’ll be interesting to see if that holds true when they rule on the Defense of Marriage Act. But one can reasonably guess it won’t.

P.S. To the comment about evangelicals staying home because Romney was a Mormom: I am an evangelical who voted for him. He would have been a MUCH better president than our Destroyer/spender-in-Chief. He is a very moral and honest man–unlike most in office.

Shame on anyone who stayed home and did not vote for Romney. They have NO right to complain about the higher cost of everything and especially health care in the near future.

I realize you prefaced that with “gay bashing” priorities so you likely can’t, but can you square your “reducing government power” against the circle of the feds determining what marriage entails?

rogerb on March 27, 2013 at 11:28 AM

That’s what I wanted an answer to..

Sigh I didn’t get one.

I also didn’t get an answer to this one either:

If we could guaranteed that marriage and abortion stayed at the state level, what federal legislation do anti-socons think socons would be pushing federally? When have the socons used the judiciary as a hammer?

“Respectfully Brian, but I have been married faithfully to the same man for 21 years. It is the first marriage for both of us. We both got married at 18 and lasted 21 years of military marriage. I am not a hypocrit when I talk about a loving and lasting marriage.

That being said, I have never talked about individual relationships. I have talked about state licensing; quite a different thing.”

Thank you, Melle1228. I am also on my first marriage. We celebrated 19 years together this year. I am not a hypocrite either when I say that heterosexual monogamy is the best thing in the world, and that I’m glad Susan has put up with me all this time!

Be that as it may, I grew up for a significant portion of my formative years in Las Vegas. I went to college in California. I’ve had my eyes — nonjudgemental but open all the same — on my fellow churchgoers. And while there are still marriages out there, it’s not hard to find a whole heap of wreckage. You don’t have to look very hard. I’ve been testifying or been aware of court cases as Christian couples fight over the kids since I was in my twenties.

Find a gay friend and drive past the Hooters and the strip clubs, turn on the TV and the internet and see limitless pornography catering to every taste, go into church and watch as couples file for divorce and fight over the kids, see the music minister run off with someone twenty years younger than him ( met the married woman who was left alone with five kids), get on the pastor’s computer and do a hard drive scan to see what he’s looking at, get a note from the church saying that the youth minister has been dismissed for adultery (saw that too), then turn to your gay friend and say “Sorry, but YOU can’t have what you want because it’s sexually immoral.”

I’m not saying that any of these things are good. But saying that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of the family when as a society we’ve been taking a wrecking ball to it for more than thirty years strains credulity.

So far as I’m concerned, the US I’m living in is the Las Vegas of my youth. Making a “Godly society” out of it is an endeavor roughly on par with making chicken salad out of chicken ****. So those of us who fear God organize together and live our lives by our principles as best we can.

As for the world, the secular authority whose basic job is to act as the bouncer in the brothel, all I ask is that it intervene when someone starts screaming. But what consenting adults do between themselves is none of my business. If they want to make a formal binding legal contract instead of fornicating willy nilly, then that is societally better and so I will support it.

I’m glad you have been able to make your marriage work and I hope it continues for more than another 21 years — for the rest of your lives together. But we’re kidding ourselves if we think we’re the norm. And the laws won’t change until they are. Laws do not change society — laws reflect changes society has already made.

Huckabee was also the guy that put Akin on the map and stood by him after his “legitimate rape” remarks. SoCon nuttiness is why the GOP loses elections, that 700 Club nonsense doesn’t even sell in the Bible Belt anymore.

Gay marriage activists and their Liberal friends, on both sides of the aisle, have been telling everyone who will listen, that a ruling in favor of “gay marriage” will have no effect on us heterosexuals, whatsoever.

What they don’t tell you, is that it is just the first step down a slippery slope. Next, Preachers will not be able to preach against homosexuality from the pulpit. It’s already happening in Canada.

Also, adoption agencies will be forced to allow gay couples to adopt. If you are an adoption agency funded by a church, you will either have to go against your belief system or shut down, just as Obama is attacking Catholic institutions over the government subsidized Birth Control/Abortion clauses in Obamacare.

If you looked at all the Polls, and listen to all of the Liberal Talking Heads on the cable news channels discussing them, you would think that America is 99.98% behind LeRoy and Festus gettin’ hitched. However, when you take a look at a map showing the results of state referendums on the subject, you see that while 9 Northern States approved it, 30 other states stood firmly against changing the definition of marriage, refusing to treat a sexual preference as a civil right.

We are charged, as Christians, to be “in the world” and not “of the world”.

But saying that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of the family when as a society we’ve been taking a wrecking ball to it for more than thirty years strains credulity.
pendell2 on March 27, 2013 at 11:47 AM

I agree, but it isn’t about individual gay couples who want to get married. It is about the motive of the activists who started the wrecking ball of traditional marriage down its path. No-fault, welfare etc. is all a symptom of a larger problem- The devaluation of the nuclear family.

Gay marriage and gay families has become about mommies or daddies becoming disposable. If gender doesn’t matter and it is only the number and two is better than one,- then wouldn’t three be better than two? If mommies and daddies are disposable, why can’t the state become daddy and mommy to children?

Scalia asked, “When did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage?” Then the liberals talked among themselves saying, “If we name a date we’ll look ridiculous, and if we say, ‘It was always unconstitutional,’ we’ll look, well, even more ridiculous.” Therefore they said, “We cannot tell.”

Scalia’s question is downright Jesusian.

Akzed on March 27, 2013 at 9:18 AM

The only way it would have been better is if Scalia had come back with, “Neither will I tell you if it’s unconstitutional now.”

But I guess you can’t do that as a judge.

Great way to pin down the people who claim to find a new Constitutional interpretation that no one ever found before.

If the Republicans have the opportunity to shed socons, which have held Republicans down for decades, they should take advantage of it.

Many of the comments here are a pristine example why, not that another example is needed.

It won’t happen though, because the Republican party hierarchy suffers from a bad case of stupid.

Moesart on March 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM

I’m sorry, but this is laughable, delusional, and politically suicidal.

I am truly going to enjoy the bleating coming from the newly-freshened GOP when they wonder aloud, “how can we possibly be losing elections worse than before – after all, we rid ourselves of those horrible social conservatives??!?”

If the Republicans have the opportunity to shed socons, which have held Republicans down for decades, they should take advantage of it.

Many of the comments here are a pristine example why, not that another example is needed.

It won’t happen though, because the Republican party hierarchy suffers from a bad case of stupid.

Moesart on March 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM

You’re doing it wrong. If the CBS numbers posted in last night’s QOTD thread are right (and they’re in the ballpark of the ABC/WaPo numbers from last week so I think they are) then “social conservatives” are evolving on this issue pretty rapidly. If a few de facto single-issue voters want to leave then I’m not going to shed a tear but let’s not try to completely saw off entire factions, especially on something where public opinion is still seeing a lot of movement in one direction.

I agree, but it isn’t about individual gay couples who want to get married. It is about the motive of the activists who started the wrecking ball of traditional marriage down its path. No-fault, welfare etc. is all a symptom of a larger problem- The devaluation of the nuclear family.

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM

I think it’s the other way round. Gay marriage is the result of the devaluation of the nuclear family.

And let’s not forget that the nuclear family is a relatively new development. I think it was doomed from the beginning. It’s part of a huge social change that started with the Industrial Revolution. We are in the middle of this change.

I don’t say that it’s a good development (on the contrary), but we can’t afford three generation families any more. At least three generations under one roof were a guarantee for stability. The moment the family became nuclear it began to fall apart.

You want to trade socons who don’t agree with you on TWO issues but will largely vote fiscally with you with a group that agrees with you on TWO issue but has been voting fiscally for the DEMS. So you want to change the social voter that fiscally agrees with you with the socially voter that will vote against you fiscally..???

If marriage and abortion, was guaranteed at the state level, what laws are socons pushing federally? What are they using the judicary for?

I see two people responded to my comments. Thank you. Your comments deserve a longer response but I have other commitments, so I’ll make this quick.

1) “In the world and not of it”.
Agreed. Which is why we show by our example what we believe. Trying to force a non-Christian world to follow Christian morals it doesn’t believe in is a mug’s game. As well wash a pig. As soon as your back is turned, off to the trough it goes.

2) “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”
Non sequitur. We’re not talking about relationship with God but the ordering of a secular society for the benefits of his inhabitants.

3) “Gay marriage is a slippery slope”

Now we move out of the realm of pure theory to prudent political tactics.

I don’t see it that way. I think the left is contriving this battle as Civil Rights II, replaying Martin Luther King vs. Bull Conner, with us socons cast in the role of bull connner with the dogs and the water cannons.

Well, I’m not playing along with this script. I refuse to fight a battle on terms which means I MUST lose even if I win. It’s the same situation Jesus was put in when confronted with the woman caught in adultery : IF he had simply read the law and condemned adultery, he’d have been technically right but the people who looked up to him — the women and the sinners under the Pharisees heel — would have lost all respect for him. He’d have won the argument but lost his following.

As we are doing today.

If I must fight for the freedom to practice my religion as I see fit, then I will do that in the fullness of time. Then *I* will have the victim role and the moral authority in a society which always assumes the underdog is the hero even when, in the case of the Palestinians, it’s obviously not the case. But the left is setting us up to take the role of white villain, the Powerful against powerless victim, and the sympathies of the children and minorities in our society are all with the “victim”.

As i said, this is the play the left has written , the script being thrust into our hands, a role we are all too easily falling into. Well, I’m not going to be suckered. I’ll fight for the rights of religious minorities to practice unhindered so that I’ll have a consistent position from which to argue for MY rights as a religious minority. Which is where this is all heading. We are a minority and we are going to get smaller, especially if we boldly make a stand in an unwinnable battle and get steamrollered anyway, making us look not only like bullies but weak, ineffective ones.

No, sweetie. I am conservative. I don’t deal in “groups.” I treat people as individuals. I DON’T EVER CALL ANYONE PERVERTS OR DEVIANTS. And you can’t find one post where I ever have. The point is that I expect the same damn respect. Treat me like an individual. Don’t go right to the homophobe, socons are icky label. Have a frickin conversations with me.

Even though I never said that you personally did, good for you “sweetie”.

Like I said labeling socons with one brush is like labeling all libertarians with one brush.

Indeed. That happens to gays and others by many social cons all the time. I have no problem treating an individual with respect who does likewise to me, but after 30+ years of social con groups doing the exact opposite while playing the poor martyr card I’m not so inclined to extend the same courtesy to them as a group. Think of it as a perverse use of the Golden Rule.

I find it hilarious that you are willing to throw socons out the party because they disagree with you on TWO frickin issues in the hopes of getting all these myhological voters who ONLY agree with you on those two issues. I mean if they really agreed with you fiscally how the hell could they ever vote for a Democrat who is more intrusive than a socon ever could be.

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 10:21 AM

And yet you do not find it so amusing that many of these same socons are willing to not only do the same to those who disagree with them on these “TWO frickin issues”, but are willing to walk over them. You are essentially trying to have it two ways in that socons can act on principle without being called on it but no one else can since their views are not in line with socon thinking, why they just can’t be anything even resembling principled ones. Point of information if I may, I understand that SSM is one of the “TWO frickin issues” you are speaking about but what is the other one? Abortion? Or is it something else?

Even though I never said that you personally did, good for you “sweetie”.

Yeah you called out my personal conduct by asking how I reacted. I told you; I treat everyone like an individual and expect the same.

And yet you do not find it so amusing that many of these same socons are willing to not only do the same to those who disagree with them on these “TWO frickin issues”, but are willing to walk over them. You are essentially trying to have it two ways in that socons can act on principle without being called on it but no one else can since their views are not in line with socon thinking, why they just can’t be anything even resembling principled ones. Point of information if I may, I understand that SSM is one of the “TWO frickin issues” you are speaking about but what is the other one? Abortion? Or is it something else?

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Do you really think the only problem with the GOP is social issue. Do you think the average socon isn’t also frustrated with the fact that the GOP has completely abandoned the fiscal platform. We aren’t talking about a model loyal party with the exception of ONE issue. The whole frickin platform is being voted against. So forgive me if I find sympathy with people want to leave the party especially when certain people in this party hate socons more than they hate Dems. And yes I am talking about abortion. As I have asked before and no one answers, all I hear is how the socons want to push their views on everyone but tell me this:

If marriage and abortion, was guaranteed at the state level, what laws are socons pushing federally? What are they using the judicary for?

And yet you do not find it so amusing that many of these same socons are willing to not only do the same to those who disagree with them on these “TWO frickin issues”, but are willing to walk over them. You are essentially trying to have it two ways in that socons can act on principle without being called on it but no one else can since their views are not in line with socon thinking, why they just can’t be anything even resembling principled ones. Point of information if I may, I understand that SSM is one of the “TWO frickin issues” you are speaking about but what is the other one? Abortion? Or is it something else?

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Not at all. You’d already be a democrat/leftist if all that mattered to you was social issues. To many social conservatives, all that does matter to them is social issues because a valueless society is not worth being a part of. So take your pick. Do you think you’re going to be able to peel off enough people from the Democrat party to make up for all those ‘icky’ social conservatives or not?

After the Bush Era? Puh-leeze. I’d have to be blind to say yes to that.

Do you think the average socon isn’t also frustrated with the fact that the GOP has completely abandoned the fiscal platform.

No doubt they are. As I’ve said before, I’ll happily join forces with socons and others where appropriate on fiscal matters, defense and even some items they might call “social issues” but I call defense of basic civil rights. For example, the Obamacare mandate on Catholic hospitals with regards to contraception or abortifacients. Despite my disagreement with the Catholic Church on the former this is a clear violation of the First Amendment IMO. Trouble is the socons only want it their way, whilst demanding the right to demonize me in the political arena as much as they please. Difficult to work with folks who refuse to even try and play nice.

We aren’t talking about a model loyal party with the exception of ONE issue. The whole frickin platform is being voted against. So forgive me if I find sympathy with people want to leave the party especially when certain people in this party hate socons more than they hate Dems.

Many of them have made it quite clear for 3+ decades that the feeling is very mutual so I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

And yes I am talking about abortion.

Something else I’m quite willing to work with socons on where possible…

If marriage and abortion, was guaranteed at the state level, what laws are socons pushing federally? What are they using the judicary for?

Do you think you’re going to be able to peel off enough people from the Democrat party to make up for all those ‘icky’ social conservatives or not?

Decisions decisions.

njrob on March 27, 2013 at 7:29 PM

Maybe, maybe not. Yet since I haven’t been a Republican for about 5+ years now, it’s really not my problem. How’s it going for socons putting together a winning coalition nationally with those who do not share their views? Not so well lately from what I’ve seen.

If marriage and abortion, was guaranteed at the state level, what laws are socons pushing federally? What are they using the judicary for?

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Besides DADT, which they finally lost on, DOMA.

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 8:15 PM

DADT was a frickin military policy that most military wanted to keep.. Or didn’t you realize that the survey was completely made up? Furthermore, DADT and DOMA were DEMOCRATIC President policies-but nice try trying to pin that on socons. Again, you are one of those that hates socons more than you hate Dems. Meh!

And you still haven’t answered my question since both DOMA and DADT were already codified in law, and DOMA wouldn’t be needed if marriage was guaranteed to the states.. So what other federal policies are we trying to change?

Maybe, maybe not. Yet since I haven’t been a Republican for about 5+ years now, it’s really not my problem. How’s it going for socons putting together a winning coalition nationally with those who do not share their views? Not so well lately from what I’ve seen.

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 8:17 PM

Without a doubt you’re correct. It’s hard to prevail on even small nuances of issues with a movement like yours with the kind of backing you have. You play the underdogs but come on. The media has been working to destroy anything and everything religious for decades. And you have the entire entertainment industry using you as a vehicle to destroy the church as well. David Geffen and the like. You dictate morality now. I concede that. I think it’s ironic that was your indictment against organized religion but I digress.

Your own blog spot is a marvel of helpful church destroying links.

Boycotting The Salvation Army? lol, My God.

But, I’ll repeat. Personally, my goal is not to win any near future political races or even social issues. We’ve lost all that can be lost. We’ve killed 50 million babies since Roe. No one cares. Our nation doesn’t have a moral compass that points in any one direction and progressive political organizations will insure the people that have achieved anything in the way of personal wealth or possessions in this country will soon give it up. I’d just like to help it along the way. The liberal republicans on this site and to a certian extent links on your site seem to worry about your money and fiscal responsiblity. It’s what I am sure was a close second on your list behind the progressive social issues you advocate. I don’t care a whit about money. I grew up poor and I can go out poor if that what it takes.

Come back when your taxes are over 50 percent so I can ask how it’s going for you.

DADT was a frickin military policy that most military wanted to keep.. Or didn’t you realize that the survey was completely made up?

Very debatable but not worth the time to rehash.

Furthermore, DADT and DOMA were DEMOCRATIC President policies-but nice try trying to pin that on socons.

I never exonerated Clinton or the Dems for DADT and DOMA. Not at all. Clinton was a spineless weasel, ironically though still a better president than the current occupant of the White House, and Dems like Sam Nunn were every bit as detestable as some of their Republican socon allies on those two issues at least.

Again, you are one of those that hates socons more than you hate Dems. Meh!

A feeling which socons have made abundantly clear for 3+ decades now they “return” to folks like myself and others who do not share their views. Socons unable to even attempt to play nice should feel free to take Huckabee’s advice and bolt. Please do.

And you still haven’t answered my question since both DOMA and DADT were already codified in law, and DOMA wouldn’t be needed if marriage was guaranteed to the states.. So what other federal policies are we trying to change?

melle1228 on March 27, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Once DOMA falls we can address that, although I would point out that I never limited my disdain for socons as an activist group on just the Federal level. After all, they certainly don’t when it comes to folks like me and others who disagree with them so why should I?

Indeed. Ditto for being forced to vote for the lesser of two weasels election after election because if you don’t, well that’s just a “wasted vote” or a “vote for the guy we REALLY hate”. Meh. I’ve been voting third party for awhile now myself, your reasons may differ from mine but feel free to join me in that regard.

Like I said, money doesn’t mean as much to me as the things I’ve lost on priciple.

Your money I certainly don’t care about. I’m actually thinking since the democrats seem to be who we’re so willing to emulate in these last couple years, we really probably should get behind conceding higher taxes are a must to take care of our entitlement responsibilities to our less forunate citizens.

A feeling which socons have made abundantly clear for 3+ decades now they “return” to folks like myself and others who do not share their views. Socons unable to even attempt to play nice should feel free to take Huckabee’s advice and bolt. Please do.

Once DOMA falls we can address that, although I would point out that I never limited my disdain for socons as an activist group on just the Federal level. After all, they certainly don’t when it comes to folks like me and others who disagree with them so why should I?

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Actually you keep talking about these mythological socons showing you disdain. And yet, I tried politely to have a policy debate with you. Kinda of hard to do when you have a chip on your shoulder about all “these people” who have been doing you wrong..

And BTW, it is not debatable whether or not the Obama adminstration fixed the military survey. Here is the link to the inspector general report that showed that they gave the results to a reporter before it was even sent out. If the military supported it; they wouldn’t have had to fix it to their way.

Like I said, money doesn’t mean as much to me as the things I’ve lost on priciple.

Understandable.

Your money I certainly don’t care about.

Feelin’ is mutual. :-)

I’m actually thinking since the democrats seem to be who we’re so willing to emulate in these last couple years, we really probably should get behind conceding higher taxes are a must to take care of our entitlement responsibilities to our less forunate citizens.

hawkdriver on March 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM

Well the GOP already has done this once during Obama’s term so why not go all the way I suppose? Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb.

Great. Run with that then. I’m not about to defend the Obama Administration on anything, including DADT repeal, or read anything linked from Elaine Donnelly’s group.

JohnAGJ on March 27, 2013 at 10:10 PM

I linked an official INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT from the DOD, but don’t let that sway you.. Not to mention that it was reported all over the Washington Times. I wouldn’t want to ruin your thinking that socons are making crap up though..

I’ve read a bunch of pieces lately claiming that SCOTUS striking down gay-marriage laws will actually be a gift to GOP politicians because it’ll take this issue off the table.

Not for me.

I will walk away from any GOP who says the situation is settled. The GOP big shots already worked their pundits (in bunches of pieces lately) to imply the argument is old, no one cares except nutcases, and get over it.

I am over anyone who sells out on civilization. Setting this up as the new definition of something that is not so defined, means it will be part of all federally mandated crap to promote, praise and teach this new version of reality

Take away tax breaks, set up State laws for inheritance, guardianship, whatever. But changing the definition of something that has only one definition, will be used to force acceptance of that definition in areas overlapping freedom of religion, freedom to choose how one’s children are taught, and freedom to set up religious activities that do not bow down to a State religion

Consider the UK, where a Christian couple can no longer foster even Christian children, because they wouldn’t expose those children to training materials proclaiming gay unions and homosexuality as good and normal, and they refused to send kids past kindergarten to gay acclimation training now mandated for fostering

A Catholic adoption service had to close in the US because it would not adopt to homosexual couples the children signed over to them for the purpose of Catholic adoption

Chaplains in the US military are in the crosshairs, if they do not perform gay marriage, or offer marriage counseling to homosexual couples. What religion are they allowed to serve?

This is the only inevitable result of what is being shoved in the faces of evangelicals. Those who are evangelicals in belief, will walk

This is being twisted as an issue of liberty, when no one is stopping the freedom to couple. Criticism of the new unreality will become, as it has in every besotted secular humanist nation, a hate crime, and critics of the new sodomy will be suppressed

Let Evangelicals walk. As a Conservative, I strongly believe in the Constitution. Thus, I also believe in the separation of Church and State. Gay marriage? Heck, let them get married. A better question is why is the state INVOLVED in marriage in the first place? If it’s about taxation, change the name to ‘civil union’ and let ‘marriage’ be the sole purveyance of the Church. Abortion? It should be protested against NOT on Religious grounds, but because it’s the execution of a human being without due process. Let the Left explain how a fetus ISN’T a human baby for a change instead of avoiding the issue and turning it into a religious issue.

I also believe in the separation of Church and State. Gay marriage? Heck, let them get married.

Disagree

A better question is why is the state INVOLVED in marriage in the first place? If it’s about taxation, change the name to ‘civil union’ and let ‘marriage’ be the sole purveyance of the Church

Agree. And I guess that’s the most frustrating me for me about this whole shimozzle, is that there are so many sensible, logical, legitimate reasons one could use to argue against ‘gay marriage’; and yet so many ‘conservatives’ ignore all of those and run towards insular arguments. When you add in all the twits still treating homosexuals et al as if they’re still in high school, and we wind up giving ‘the left’ plenty of ammunition to use in the public forum. And we wind up where we are today.